A film has hit Youtube and will be of interest to supporters of hunting. Featuring two League Against Cruel Sports employees, Paul Tillsley and Ed Shephard, the film reports that they are trespassing in woodland trying to film members of hunts From here;
So my thoughts are, is it ok to break the law, while trying to catch some one else breaking the law? In my personal veiw, no it is not, and would any evedence which was obtained this way even be immiscible in court?
Quote by Bluefish2009 A film has hit Youtube and will be of interest to supporters of hunting. Featuring two League Against Cruel Sports employees, Paul Tillsley and Ed Shephard, the film reports that they are trespassing in woodland trying to film members of hunts From here;
So my thoughts are, is it ok to break the law, while trying to catch some one else breaking the law? In my personal veiw, no it is not, and would any evedence which was obtained this way even be immiscible in court?
you sure sara....we have cases brought where people have trespassed onto land to film other maybe more serious crimes I accept. A number of cases of people secretly filming in old peoples homes and mental institues spring to mind...and convictions have followed. I do remember a recent one actually where the same group posted a video of a farm worker kicking chickens and such like, and he was convicted of cruelty. Basically I think the people take the risk. If their actions result in a more serious crime coming to light, then I would say the end justifies the means.
Quote by Bluefish2009 So my thoughts are, is it ok to break the law, while trying to catch some one else breaking the law?
the law can be a funny thing. i was glad when the hunting ban came into force, as i hate any kind of animal cruelty. i suppose that if a person was not breaking the law in the first place then there would be no need for anyone else to break the law either. but i beleeve that if somebody is openly flouting the law then yes others should be able to break the law to catch them out.
Quote by deano Basically I think the people take the risk. If their actions result in a more serious crime coming to light, then I would say the end justifies the means.
So my thoughts are, is it ok to break the law, while trying to catch some one else breaking the law?
the law can be a funny thing. i was glad when the hunting ban came into force, as i hate any kind of animal cruelty. i suppose that if a person was not breaking the law in the first place then there would be no need for anyone else to break the law either. but i beleeve that if somebody is openly flouting the law then yes others should be able to break the law to catch them out.
Quote by deano Basically I think the people take the risk. If their actions result in a more serious crime coming to light, then I would say the end justifies the means.
could not agree more deano :thumbup: I would concede to this only if the person who committed the lesser crime in the proses of gaining evidence of the, so called greater crime is also prosecuted for there crime. I feel this train of thought is a slipery slope and where would we draw the line? As a side note, I do not believe hunting to be cruel, as mentioned in previous threads; http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/352534.html http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/305150.html I am happy to discuss the cruelty issue further if you would like to, please high light what part of hunting you believe to be cruel?
I'm pretty sure trespassing is a civil offence, not a criminal offence. No idea about hunting - is that a crime or a civil offence? If it's a crime, then trespassing to catch people at it is the lesser offence. Criminal damage is a crime, and is often committed while trespassing - like breaking locks or damaging hedges/fences to gain access.
is it ok to break the law, while trying to catch some one else breaking the law? In my personal veiw, no it is not, :sad: many lawyers would use arguements like this to get villians off...... so how would you feel if you had a chance by naughty bugging a phone call of stopping 9 /11 or similiar no im not for big brother however im not for being held by terrorist rights. civil rights has done us well but like all rights it can go too far those who have nought to hide have no reason to fear such things as id cards cc cameras. (that should be enough said to stir the pot lol)
Foxy, hunting with hounds is a criminal offence, trespass as you say is generally a civil offence that becomes a criminal offence in certain circumstances, for example intimidating those going about their lawful business, criminal damage, etc. Blue, there have been acquittals where defendants have claimed 'lawful excuse', in that they committed a crime to prevent the commission of a greater one, the case against six Greenpeace activists who damaged Kingsnorth power station being an oft quoted example. In all of the cases AFAIK, they were using the concept of lawful excuse as set out in Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, which makes room for that defence specifically against charges of criminal damage, and only criminal damage. I don't think in your example those charged with trespassing could use a similar kind of defence, as I don't believe the law makes room for it? In this case, where we're talking a civil versus a criminal matter, it perhaps should? There's a possible irony there that a trespasser would actually have to go further than they perhaps intended and commit a more serious offence of criminal damage before they could even begin to use lawful excuse as a defence. Then they'd have to argue in court that hunting with hounds was the greater offence that necessitated their actions. Not sure the courts would find in their favour. Not sure relatively speaking there's a big enough disparity, if any, between the seriousness of the two offences to make it workable, but then I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know? N x x x ;)
Quote by Bluefish2009 So my thoughts are, is it ok to break the law, while trying to catch some one else breaking the law? In my personal veiw, no it is not, and would any evedence which was obtained this way even be immiscible in court?
If it was an enforcement officer then the evidence may be inadmissable as they broke the law/code obtaining that evidence. If they are handed the evidence by a. n. other then it could possibly be used as the enforcement officer didn't break the code/law..........I think, but do not know. I suspect it would be a court decision depending on the circumstances surrounding the act. This is how they make their money Dave_Notts
I'm almost certain there are rules of evidence that must be followed in order for, say, video footage to become admissible in court proceedings. Such is the case in obtaining evidence from someone's home for example by the Police which, if not properly conducted, would be held inadmissible in much the same way that 'hearsay' would be. I think that evidence obtained in such a way as described may certainly alert the proper authorities to the issue giving them the opportunity then to gather evidence properly and within the rules in order to lead to a successful prosecution. Doesn't stop the proper authorities using it though in their evidence gathering exercise and when confronting the accused in the hope of getting a clear 'cough'
Quote by GnV I'm almost certain there are rules of evidence that must be followed in order for, say, video footage to become admissible in court proceedings. Such is the case in obtaining evidence from someone's home for example by the Police which, if not properly conducted, would be held inadmissible in much the same way that 'hearsay' would be. I think that evidence obtained in such a way as described may certainly alert the proper authorities to the issue giving them the opportunity then to gather evidence properly and within the rules in order to lead to a successful prosecution. Doesn't stop the proper authorities using it though in their evidence gathering exercise and when confronting the accused in the hope of getting a clear 'cough'
You just gave me a ding moment then (you know.....the lightbulb on the head) If it was the police putting in the camera then they can demonstrate the camera is in working order, calibrated, time/date coded, who put it in, what qualifications they hold, where they put it in, etc, etc, etc. This is how they prove the evidence should be admissable. With this one, there is no date, where it was placed (could have been a public access area for all I know), there is no background identification, etc. So it could be viewed but the prosecuting officer/CPS would have to demonstrate to themselves that this is actual evidence showing what it says it is showing. If they can't satisfy themselves then they wouldn't be able to satisfy the court so could be dismissed. Dave_Notts
Quote by Ben_Minx Didnt that lady who put the cat in the wheelie bin get prosecuted as a result of an amateur surveillance video?
very good point ben but the point is this.
Quote by blue fish So my thoughts are, is it ok to break the law, while trying to catch some one else breaking the law?
the person who videoed the person putting the cat in the bin, was them selves not breaking any laws them selves whilst doing it. i thought that was the main point of this debate?
I was joining in the discussion blue prompted regarding the admissablity of amateur video evidence. From the discussion so far it would appear the law enshrines the principle that law breaking is allowable in the cause of preventing a greater harm. I felt I could add nothing to that aspect.
Quote by Ben_Minx Didnt that lady who put the cat in the wheelie bin get prosecuted as a result of an amateur surveillance video?
She did and she was fined £250 plus costs of over £1000 after pleading guilty to a charge of animal cruelty following an investigation by the RSPCA. I doubt that the video was produced as evidence as the RSPCA had a clear 'cough' from Mary Bale who was identified by the video and admitted the offence.
Of course, what we should remember is that being illegal doesn't make something wrong (homsexuality in the past) and being legal doesn't make it right (mp's expenses). They usually coincide - but not always. I'd rather be prsecuted for doing something right than accept a law that is wrong.
Quote by foxylady2209 Of course, what we should remember is that being illegal doesn't make something wrong (homsexuality in the past) and being legal doesn't make it right (mp's expenses). They usually coincide - but not always. I'd rather be prsecuted for doing something right than accept a law that is wrong.
Homosexuality was decriminalised in 1957 (except for the armed forces - when it was decriminalised pursuant to the Human Rights Act) - it therefore was against the law "and wrong". ... now whether you think is was wrong is neither here nor there - the law said it was - and therefore it was. End of discussion. MPs expenses are allowable as taxable deductions, as long as the expense that was claimed was done so within the course of the MPs employment. ... now whether you think that is right is neither here not there - the law says it is right and therefore it is. End of discussion. The real issue behind this post is whether a Person A acting under a moral code, can catch person B who is committing a criminal offence - the issue being of course whether the "moral dimension" of Person A's actions outweights the "criminal actions" of Person B irrespective of whether Person A's actions are legal or not. The answer is that Person A cannot commit a criminal offence to catch Person B (who is suspected of committing a criminal offence), irrespective of whether Person A acts morally (but illegally), or illegally (whether it is morally right or not). This is reflected in law - for instance the Police reguarly exceed the speed limit to catch criminals (who are exceeding the speed limit) - but the Police are exempted under the Road Traffic Regulations 1998 whereas the criminal is not. So although it appears that Person A (the Police) is breaking the law to catch Person B (the criminal) - it is not the case, given that the law does not apply to the Police in these circumstances (as they are exempted... by another law)... therefore no breach of the law exists. The opposite is a corrollary - you will remember the case of Tony Martin (the farmer who shot the burglar). Leaving aside Mr Martin's mental state, the "everyday man on the street" would argue that it is quite right and proper that if someone is seen breaking into their property that they should expect to be shot. Some wouldn't say that - and that's fair enough - but I defy anyone to not wish harm on anyone else breaking into their property... Nevertheless the "suspected burglar" was shot and Mr Martin was convicted of a criminal offence. You could argue that he broke the law (assault) to stop an offence (burglary)... and look what happened to him. The concept is very deep and is inextricably linked by bounds of morality (what we think is wrong) to legality (what is said to be wrong). It is the same argument for why murder is morally wrong and legally wrong - where as adultery is morally wrong but not legally wrong - similarly speeding is legally wrong but not morally wrong. How far do you push Person A (morally, and/or illegally) to catch Person B (legally) in order to secure the conviction in law. It won't happen - and if it did then the law would be unpredictable in all respects and none of us would be able to predict the outcome of anything. It is a very noble point to make - to rather be prosecuted for doing something right than accept a law that is wrong... and this is a personal call and no one can say that you are right or wrong whichever way you go. I don't accept the law that says I need to buy I fishing licence given that I put the fish back and I always tidy up after myself... I still buy one. I don't accept the law that says I need to by a TV licence given that I despise the BBC and all the tripe that they push out in the name of entertainment... I still buy one. I don't accept the law that says I need to have my car MOT'd given that I know my car is in good working order... but I still get it done. If you would rather be prosecuted for disobedience to a law that you personally believe is wrong - then more power to you. I however would not.
Quote by HimandHer The opposite is a corrollary - you will remember the case of Tony Martin (the farmer who shot the burglar). Leaving aside Mr Martin's mental state, the "everyday man on the street" would argue that it is quite right and proper that if someone is seen breaking into their property that they should expect to be shot. Some wouldn't say that - and that's fair enough - but I defy anyone to not wish harm on anyone else breaking into their property... Nevertheless the "suspected burglar" was shot and Mr Martin was convicted of a criminal offence. You could argue that he broke the law (assault) to stop an offence (burglary)... and look what happened to him.
The huge difference in this case, as I understood it, was that Mr Martin (having been burgled before by these morons) laid in wait for them sitting on the stairs with a loaded shotgun and discharged the weapon as they were exiting the property. That was not in defence of himself or his property but meting out summary justice of his own - a revenge killing and clearly outside the law, somewhat indisputably so. It is no different to a later case where the criminals were chased down the street by the brother of the person burgled who caught up with them and beat the living shit out of one of them who later died.
Quote by HimandHer Of course, what we should remember is that being illegal doesn't make something wrong (homsexuality in the past) and being legal doesn't make it right (mp's expenses). They usually coincide - but not always. I'd rather be prsecuted for doing something right than accept a law that is wrong.
Homosexuality was decriminalised in 1957 (except for the armed forces - when it was decriminalised pursuant to the Human Rights Act) - it therefore was against the law "and wrong". ... now whether you think is was wrong is neither here nor there - the law said it was - and therefore it was. End of discussion. Wrong, wrong and thrice WRONG!!!!!!! Being against the law does not equal being wrong. Bad laws are made by despots - in some cases the law itself is wrong. If illegal was always the same as wrong, homosexuality would never and could never have been made legal. Are you saying being illegal defines wrongness? I disagree totally. But that's just me - you know you can have a different opinion - ain't freedom of expression lovely? I feel that accepting that illegal = wrong is to give up any small power we should have to influence bad legislation. I guess that you and certainly I, comply with laws we don't like or accept simply because the consequences aren't worth the bother, not because we feel that being law makes them right. Others will take the flak and not pay the license or not pay the Poll Tax. As you say, more power to them. personally I don't think the TV License is important enough to fight over anyway. If I come across a law I truly believe to be unacceptable, I will stand up and fight. However I have a fairly high tolerance of silly laws and a low threshold for idleness.
Quote by foxylady2209 Of course, what we should remember is that being illegal doesn't make something wrong (homsexuality in the past) and being legal doesn't make it right (mp's expenses). They usually coincide - but not always. I'd rather be prsecuted for doing something right than accept a law that is wrong.
Homosexuality was decriminalised in 1957 (except for the armed forces - when it was decriminalised pursuant to the Human Rights Act) - it therefore was against the law "and wrong". ... now whether you think is was wrong is neither here nor there - the law said it was - and therefore it was. End of discussion. Wrong, wrong and thrice WRONG!!!!!!! Being against the law does not equal being wrong. I am sorry to burst your bubble but unfortunately (or fortunately - depending on what the subject in question is)... it is exactly what it means. If being against the law does not mean that whatever the subject is... is wrong - then it must mean by default that whatever it is... is either right - or inconsequential. Every subject that anyone raises will fall into one of 3 categories as far as you, me or anyone else is concerned. You will either agree with it - you will disagree with it - or you will have no opinion either way. It is the same with the law - if the law says it is wrong - then it is. It is not the case that if the law says it is wrong... that whatever it is must be right or inconsequential - that's just illogical. Clearly, the laws change, and as we were talking about homosexuality in the above excerpt, it is fair to carry on with that example. It was against the law (and wrong in the eyes of the law) - it is now not against the law (and not wrong within the eyes of the law). You can put whatever words you like into the phrase "not wrong within the eyes of the law"... whether that means it is right, or it is inconsequential. However if the lawmakers say it is wrong - and the law is passed to say it is wrong - then it is wrong... up until the point that the law is replealed. I accept fully that you don't believe that - but the courts do and that's all that matters.
Quote by HimandHer It was against the law (and wrong in the eyes of the law) - it is now not against the law (and not wrong within the eyes of the law).
Key part of the post I believe .... right and wrong are NOT merely legal, but moral and ethical questions the law as we all know is frequently an ass
Quote by GnV The opposite is a corrollary - you will remember the case of Tony Martin (the farmer who shot the burglar). Leaving aside Mr Martin's mental state, the "everyday man on the street" would argue that it is quite right and proper that if someone is seen breaking into their property that they should expect to be shot. Some wouldn't say that - and that's fair enough - but I defy anyone to not wish harm on anyone else breaking into their property... Nevertheless the "suspected burglar" was shot and Mr Martin was convicted of a criminal offence. You could argue that he broke the law (assault) to stop an offence (burglary)... and look what happened to him.
The huge difference in this case, as I understood it, was that Mr Martin (having been burgled before by these morons) laid in wait for them sitting on the stairs with a loaded shotgun and discharged the weapon as they were exiting the property. That was not in defence of himself or his property but meting out summary justice of his own - a revenge killing and clearly outside the law, somewhat indisputably so. It is no different to a later case where the criminals were chased down the street by the brother of the person burgled who caught up with them and beat the living shit out of one of them who later died. You are absolutely right. I didn't want to go into the full ins and outs of it, as essentially he broke the law to stop someone breaking the law, which is wrong (in law), the case was used as an example as everyone has heard of it. The point is you cannot break a law to stop a law from being broken - clearly the court would need to take the full circumstances into consideration... e.g... you chance upon an elderly gentleman having a heart attack and rush him to the nearest hospital (and get flashed for speeding). Unfortunately for almost every breach of the law (committed with good intention), there will be a reason that the law can give to explain why you should not have acted as you did (in this example you should have called an ambulance who are entitled within the provisions of the law to break the speed limits etc). It is a complicated area and there are even examples of such laws even working retrospectively. Take for instance the case where a Store Detective "arrests" someone who he believes to have committed a theft. The case gets to caught and the "thief" is acquitted. Therefore no theft has occured and the "arrest" was unlawful. The Store Detective broke the law to stop a law from being broken - even though at the time he made the arrest he thought he was right, and protected by law ( PACE 1984 did not alter common law powers of arrest). It is not as simple as it appears, and there will always be a case to be made - but if the law says it is wrong then it is - and you cannot break the law to prevent breaking the law.
From this snippet from the link below it would seam that prosecutions are much harder to pursue if obtained illegally. From here;
On a similar theme, I noticed an interesting snippet on DEFRA's website, under the category Myth busters. It reads as follows: The myth: Animal Aid has used undercover filming to show abuse at a slaughterhouse, and is criticising DEFRA for not seeking a prosecution --- implying that the department does not care about animal welfare. The truth: This is not true. Animal cruelty is completely unacceptable, and we vigorously pursue action wherever we can. But as DEFRA found in a previous prosecution based on an Animal Aid video, if the evidence has been obtained unlawfully through trespass there is little prospect of a conviction.
I think we all watch people on a daily basis break the law. Is it OK for a police car to exceed the speed limit to either chase a car or to get to a incident ? I believe yes, others may not ?
Quote by mutualfun1 I think we all watch people on a daily basis break the law. Is it OK for a police car to exceed the speed limit to either chase a car or to get to a incident ? I believe yes, others may not ?
That is a greyish area I think. Certainly the police have specific opersating procedures that allow exceeding the speed limit in certain circumstances. They are also expected (within those operating procedures) to maintain the spirit of the law which is to not endanger themselves or others during the chase. Holding someone agaisnt their will is a crime - but we have thousands of people locked up (presumably) against their will - in prison. So clearly, some laws have caveats that allow them to be set aside of 'society' agrees.
That's was my point, even if it wasn't well made so we are in agreement. But I do also believe they are there to "maintain law and order", which does not mean they can "break the Law". Hence the grey area... but hey who do we call when were in trouble..so lets hope they carry on doing their good work..
Quote by foxylady2209 I think we all watch people on a daily basis break the law. Is it OK for a police car to exceed the speed limit to either chase a car or to get to a incident ? I believe yes, others may not ?
That is a greyish area I think. Certainly the police have specific opersating procedures that allow exceeding the speed limit in certain circumstances. They are also expected (within those operating procedures) to maintain the spirit of the law which is to not endanger themselves or others during the chase. Holding someone agaisnt their will is a crime - but we have thousands of people locked up (presumably) against their will - in prison. So clearly, some laws have caveats that allow them to be set aside of 'society' agrees.
Quote by foxylady2209 I think we all watch people on a daily basis break the law. Is it OK for a police car to exceed the speed limit to either chase a car or to get to a incident ? I believe yes, others may not ?
That is a greyish area I think. Certainly the police have specific opersating procedures that allow exceeding the speed limit in certain circumstances. They are also expected (within those operating procedures) to maintain the spirit of the law which is to not endanger themselves or others during the chase. Holding someone agaisnt their will is a crime - but we have thousands of people locked up (presumably) against their will - in prison. So clearly, some laws have caveats that allow them to be set aside of 'society' agrees. You are wrong - it is not a greyish area - it is black and white. They have the law on there side. You are right - they can exceed the speed limit in certain circumstances, and those circumstances are set out in law. So - they are not breaking the law if the exceed the speed limit under those circumstances set out in law - but they will be breaking the law if that is not the case.
There is a defence in English common law (used by the police etc on a daily basis..eg speeding) saying that one crime may be committed if it prevents a greater crime. The problem isn't what law was broke, but rather one of what defence was used to defend that persons actions in court. No law can been found to be broken until a person is found guilty. John.
Swinging Heaven features sexually explicit material. To access this site you must be of the legal age to engage with the material of an adult site.
By entering Swinging Heaven you agree to the following;
I am deemed an adult where I live, and I am at least 18 years old
I am allowed to access & view sexually explicit material
0 likes
